Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

[WAFU]

I'd say it's abundantly clear that the SBD did NOT run rings around the Fulmar, and in fact was not as good in the fighter role. But it could sink ships!

As scouts they were probably fairly equivalent. Fulmar has a bit better performacne but I think the SBD has better range.

In a turning fight, a Fulmar would lose, and lose fast against an SBD.
it was excessively stable, and it's controls quickly became very heavy if it was pushed hard. It was what it was, a light bomber masquerading as a fighter.

the Fulmars performance was so marginal, (a factor specifically noted during its trials when it was reluctantly accepted into service), it was always being examined in its service to see what could be left out or removed to save a few pounds to gain even the most modest bit of extra performance to present a threat even to medium bombers.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Though I have argued superficially similar positions, I think you are heavily overstating the case both with how bad the Fulmar was and how good the SBD was in the fighter role. You can believe what you like though.

 

[buffnut453]

My, we do like to make bold statements without backing them up, don't we?

The A6M was quite a bit slower than many contemporary fighters, but proved to be a deadly adversary thanks to its agility and good climb rate.

The A6M was not slower than contemporary fighters when it entered service until the arrival of the F6F in 1943.

The Fulmar was what it was, a variant of a light bomber and proved unable to compete with the Bf110, let alone the Bf109. It was not only slow and docile handling, but also had a terrible climb rate. It struggled to deal wit many bombers.

And yet it was still the highest scoring type in FAA service. It must have done some things even passably well.

By comparison, the SBD was a very agile aircraft, relatively well armed, 2 x .50's up front are much more lethal than 8 x .303's

Ahhh...now we're back to the 50cal being a wonderweapon and the 303 being a "paint scratcher." A pair of 50cals is NOT much more lethal than 8x.303s, particularly if you're ignoring the typical ammo loads for the respective aircraft.

The SBD was certainly able to hold its own against the fearsome A6M, a plane that had no problem sweeping the Fulmar aside.

No, the SBD scored some kills against the A6M but it could NOT hold its own. Please stop overstating the SBD's attributes. As for the Fulmar, the most famous "sweeping aside" occurred when 6 Fulmars were lost...but they were tasked with interdicting Japanese bombers, and they managed to shoot down four Vals and one Kate despite being assaulted by the escorting A6Ms.


While I entirely agree that the Fulmar wasn't great, I think you're vastly overstating the SBD's capabilities and underestimating the performance of the Fulmar. If the Fulmar was as bad as you suggest, then it shouldn't have achieved the number of kills that it did.

 

[yulzari]

Passing trivia, as it was not used in the role, but the Fairey Fulmar was stressed for and cleared for dive bombing with 2x250lb bombs.

 

[buffnut453]

The Fulmar also obtained 112 kills for 40 losses. That's a kill-to-loss ratio of 2.8:1 which isn't shabby by anyone's metric.

 

[tomo pauk]

Speed is not the definitive be all of fighter combat. The A6M was quite a bit slower than many contemporary fighters, but proved to be a deadly adversary thanks to its agility and good climb rate.

A6M was faster or of equal speed vs. most of the Allied fighters it encountered.

By comparison, the SBD was a very agile aircraft, relatively well armed, 2 x .50's up front are much more lethal than 8 x .303's, and had a decent climb rate, not far short of the F4F Wildcat.

Saying that some aircraft have had the climb rate just sort o the F4F is a damning with a faint praise.
Source for 2 x .50s from SBDs being much more lethal the the 8x .303s?

The SBD was certainly able to hold its own against the fearsome A6M, a plane that had no problem sweeping the Fulmar aside.

Too bad the USN didn't tossed the F4Fs aside, and stock up the carriers with SBDs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

My, we do like to make bold statements without backing them up, don't we?



The A6M was not slower than contemporary fighters when it entered service until the arrival of the F6F in 1943.

I'd dispute that - the P-40 (including B,C and E but especially K and F) were faster, and the P-38 (fighting already in 1942) was definitely faster. The P-39 was faster as well at least on paper.

But the A6M was much more competitive in speed at most altitudes than people typically credit them to be.

And yet it was still the highest scoring type in FAA service. It must have done some things even passably well.

Which isn't saying much

Ahhh...now we're back to the 50cal being a wonderweapon and the 303 being a "paint scratcher." A pair of 50cals is NOT much more lethal than 8x.303s, particularly if you're ignoring the typical ammo loads for the respective aircraft.




No, the SBD scored some kills against the A6M but it could NOT hold its own. Please stop overstating the SBD's attributes. As for the Fulmar, the most famous "sweeping aside" occurred when 6 Fulmars were lost...but they were tasked with interdicting Japanese bombers, and they managed to shoot down four Vals and one Kate despite being assaulted by the escorting A6Ms.


While I entirely agree that the Fulmar wasn't great, I think you're vastly overstating the SBD's capabilities and underestimating the performance of the Fulmar. If the Fulmar was as bad as you suggest, then it shouldn't have achieved the number of kills that it did.

Agreed, though Fulmar was not capable of (nor designed for) combat with the top tier land based fighters, any more than SBD was on it's own.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A6M was faster or of equal speed vs. most of the Allied fighters it encountered.

Again, I'd dispute that. P-40s routinely outran them, especially in a dive, that's how they survived. P-38's definitely did (often with a shallow high speed climb).

Saying that some aircraft have had the climb rate just sort o the F4F is a damning with a faint praise.
Source for 2 x .50s from SBDs being much more lethal the the 8x .303s?



Too bad the USN didn't tossed the F4Fs aside, and stock up the carriers with SBDs.

Lol

 

[Zipper730]

The problem with dive bombers is that they are low energy.

That's a pretty good assessment: Many dive-bombers were rated to g-loads that were similar to fighter planes (a few better such as the A-31/35 Vengeance which was rated to 9g normal-rated) but generally lacked the power to sustain the g-loads as long. I would assume that dive-bombers would often be a little heavier on pitch (i.e. pounds per g) and a bit more on roll (roll-rates weren't usually important on dive-bombers, though the USN seemed to focus around this more).

The RAF defined "dive bombing" to include very shallow dives. It couldn't do anything like a 60 degree dive.

I didn't know exactly what their cut-off was, but the Fairey Battle could do a 70-degree dive, which is fully in the dive-bombing range.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'm not sure they are so low-energy compared to contemporaneous fighters ... maybe another way to look at it is this - dive bombers are designed with sufficient power to carry an extra 800 to 2,000 lbs up to altitude and out to the target. Once they get rid of that weight, they can become fairly sprightly. Without it's bomb, a D3A has a peppier power to weight ratio (about 0.18 - 0.20) than an early model P-40, P-39, or Wildcat (all around 0.13-0.16 depending on the precise loadout). An SBD or Vengeance is slightly less (0.12 or so). Ju 87 and SB2C are similar depending on weight and loadout. So the power is about 80% of what a fighter has which isn't bad.

The bigger problem with dive bombers IMO is that they tend to be draggy. Big wings, fixed undercarriage for the D3 or the Stuka, dive brakes, tail gunner. Bomb cradle. All that robs an aircraft of speed. But on the plus side that huge wing does confer better turn radius. I do suspect most dive bombers are also fairly slow rolling aircraft, as you don't want a twitchy dive bomber. Exception maybe would be the A-36.

 

[Shortround6]

they tend to be draggy.

which means low energy.

Energy is not raw power to weight. It is available power to weight.
Assume two planes have the same engine.
If the big draggy dive bomber needs 400hp just to stay in the air at a given speed and the small fighter (even if heavy) only needs 250hp to fly the same speed the fighter has a an extra 150hp to climb, or maintain a banked turn or accelerate.

The dive bombers were designed with sufficient lift (big wing) to carry the weight. Once they get rid of the weight they still have the big wing and all the extra drag.

 

[ThomasP]

re British aircraft being capable of dive bombing

In the Pilot's Notes they will usually give the ordnance clearance angles for a dive (ie how steep a dive you could do and drop bombs from the bomb bay without them hitting something on the airframe). This angle was considered the limit for dive bombing. If the airplane was not considered to be capable of dive bombing, there were no clearance angles listed. Here are a few examples from the Pilot's Notes:

Battle_________80° and 340 mph IAS
Wellington_____60° and 320 mph IAS (IAS was limited by the fabric wing covering tending to balloon at high speeds)
Hudson_______34° and 250 mph IAS (IAS limited by strength of bomb bay doors)
Beaufort______ 30° and 350 mph IAS
Halifax________30° and 320 mph IAS (when dropping a 4000 lb 'cookie' the max dive speed was limited to 270 mph IAS)
Lancaster_____ 30° and 360 mph IAS

The actual dive speed used would be limited by release altitude and allowable G load during pull out.

 

[PAT303]

Ahhh...now we're back to the 50cal being a wonderweapon and the 303 being a "paint scratcher." A pair of 50cals is NOT much more lethal than 8x.303s, particularly if you're ignoring the typical ammo loads for the respective aircraft.

Give me eight .303's with reliable effective ammunition over two harmonized .50's with unreliable ammunition anyday.

 

[yulzari]

In everything I have read the Fairey Battles in the BoF used level/shallow bombing at low altitude for their sorties. Has anyone knowledge of any use made of their steep dive bombing facility? Whilst the core purpose of the Battle was level bombing from medium height one would have thought that the tactical sorties of the BoF would have been best achieved using the accuracy of their dive bombing abilities, with the wing cell bomb racks extended as dive brakes.

Allied to this, does anyone know of any training in the dive bombing role? It was not as if they had little time to practice since the AASF arrived in France long before the war heated up in May 1940. I do realise that the AASF was not there to do the tactical tasks but their immediate use in the tactical role when the BoF began demonstrates that they should have trained in case they were called upon. Did the RAF expect the Germans to have such effective AA fire at key points that a low level high speed one pass strike was necessary and dive bombing too risky? The possibility of such a situation certainly did not seem to dissuade the Luftwaffe from tactical dive bombing at the time.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

which means low energy.

Energy is not raw power to weight. It is available power to weight.
Assume two planes have the same engine.
If the big draggy dive bomber needs 400hp just to stay in the air at a given speed and the small fighter (even if heavy) only needs 250hp to fly the same speed the fighter has a an extra 150hp to climb, or maintain a banked turn or accelerate.

The dive bombers were designed with sufficient lift (big wing) to carry the weight. Once they get rid of the weight they still have the big wing and all the extra drag.

I don't really buy that. I've never read an account of dive bomber pilots describing their aircraft as "low energy". And I think you heavily overstate the merit of the rate of climb as an indicator of turning ability. Big wings cause drag, but lower wing loading also means getting around the circle quicker / i.e. spending less time turning. The Bf 109 had a better rate of climb than the Hurricane or Spitfire (depending on which exact variants), but was out-turned by both according to pilots on both sides.

How much more draggy the dive bomber was varied - but the drag of an SBD wasn't really comparable to something like like that of a TBD, TBF, B5N etc., let alone one of the seaplanes or flying boats, or any of the lower powered light bombers which were still around in the early war - Ki 21, G3M etc.That's why dive bombers could prey on them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In everything I have read the Fairey Battles in the BoF used level/shallow bombing at low altitude for their sorties. Has anyone knowledge of any use made of their steep dive bombing facility? Whilst the core purpose of the Battle was level bombing from medium height one would have thought that the tactical sorties of the BoF would have been best achieved using the accuracy of their dive bombing abilities, with the wing cell bomb racks extended as dive brakes.

Allied to this, does anyone know of any training in the dive bombing role? It was not as if they had little time to practice since the AASF arrived in France long before the war heated up in May 1940. I do realise that the AASF was not there to do the tactical tasks but their immediate use in the tactical role when the BoF began demonstrates that they should have trained in case they were called upon. Did the RAF expect the Germans to have such effective AA fire at key points that a low level high speed one pass strike was necessary and dive bombing too risky? The possibility of such a situation certainly did not seem to dissuade the Luftwaffe from tactical dive bombing at the time.

Good questions. Anecdotally, I think dive bombing was actually a good bit safer against flak than low-level bombing. To do the mast-head type bombing successfully they usually had to coordinate that with strafer planes that could help neutralize or suppress the AAA.

A dive-bombing fairey battle seems to me like a much more viable aircraft than the one actually used in action.

 

[elbmc1969]

The Skua was a product of it's time. I Still can't figure out the thinking behind the 500 SAP bomb. It was neither fish nor fowl.
Too much AP for destroyers, light cruisers, transports and too little AP for German Battleships (or newer Italian ones). Using one bomb for everything simplifies logistics and training but isn't go good for target effect. Again, there was no improved Skua, what they had in in spring of 1940 was what they had in Dec of 1938.

The specification was for wrecking the flight decks and hangars of Japanese carriers. (And the RN's armored hangars were supposed to prevent the same from happening to them.)

Of course, they demonstrated good performance against the one German light cruiser that they hit.

Against destroyers it doesn't matter much because the chance of hitting is stunningly low. Look at the performance of SBDs against them in the Solomons.

Against battleships, a 500 lb bomb is inadequate, but they simply couldn't design a dual-role aircraft that could lift a 1000 lb bomb. It didn't matter in RN doctrine because battleships were the second priority of Swordfish, and then the RN battleships were supposed to clean up everything.

Whether or not this was realistic, there was clear doctrinal thinking behind it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

According to this chart, posted in the earlier pages of this thread, Stukas didn't have much trouble hitting destroyers and smaller ships, and 'others' (presumably Ju 88s?) didn't do so badly either.

I think the SBDs that famously missed some IJN ships in the Solomons were mostly those flown out of Henderson Field by Marine Corps pilots who weren't fully trained on the type and didn't do the higher angle dive bombing. But Navy SBDs sunk a fair number of transports and other ships besides carriers.

 

[BiffF15]

I don't really buy that. I've never read an account of dive bomber pilots describing their aircraft as "low energy".

Let me try a different approach. I flew F-15A-Ds and have literally 100s of engagements with F-16s. I wouldn't describe the Eagle as low energy but would describe the F-16 as higher energy. I had a bigger high lift wing, and he had more excess energy. He climbed better, and turned better at most altitudes.

And I think you heavily overstate the merit of the rate of climb as an indicator of turning ability. Big wings cause drag, but lower wing loading also means getting around the circle quicker / i.e. spending less time turning. The Bf 109 had a better rate of climb than the Hurricane or Spitfire (depending on which exact variants), but was out-turned by both according to pilots on both sides.

Shortround is correct in his remarks. Excess energy is a good thing. While a large high lift wing is good for turn, it's only for the initial turn, not for the sustained portion (everything after the initial portion AKA about 90 degrees in the case of the Eagle). The reason is the thrust is not enough to overcome the drag caused by the wing in a hard turn.

How much more draggy the dive bomber was varied - but the drag of an SBD wasn't really comparable to something like like that of a TBD, TBF, B5N etc., let alone one of the seaplanes or flying boats, or any of the lower powered light bombers which were still around in the early war - Ki 21, G3M etc.That's why dive bombers could prey on them.

The fighters (Zero, F4F) are on one end of the spectrum, the SBD is further to the right, and the TBD, TBF, B5N are even farther right. All are able to be compared but in a dogfight the favored live on one end, all others are to the right with a much bigger gap than you realize.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'm not saying that energy doesn't matter, but I think turning is a combination of power and drag and wing loading. And sometimes things like using the flaps for extra lift.

Equating real turn rate with climb rate is, I think, a gross oversimplification and incorrect. We have those Soviet turn time tests, where they were counting how many seconds to perform a full turn (I believe without descending) and the zippiest aircraft like again the Bf 109 did not out turn 'less peppy' types like the Hurricane or the I-16. Very much to the contrary. For example:

I-16 / 29 turn time 16 / 17 seconds
Yak 9 turn time 17 / 18 seconds
Hurricane IIA turn time 17/18 seconds
P-40C turn time 18 seconds
Spitfire VB turn time 18.8 seconds
LaGG-3 turn time 18-19 seconds
P-40E turn time 19.2 seconds
Bf 109F-4 turn time 19.6 / 20.5 seconds
La-5F turn time 20 seconds
FW 190A-5 turn time 21-22 seconds
Bf 109G-2/R6 turn time 22.6 - 22.8 seconds
P-47D-10-RE turn time 26 seconds
Bf 109E-3 turn time 26.5-29 seconds

(for those with two numbers, some turn faster in one direction than the other)

Which also matches pretty much all the pilots accounts. Unfortunately I don't think the Soviets tested the SBD.

When it comes to F-16 vs. F-15, I'll take your word for it. I remember many many years ago reading that F-16s could pull more G but checking just now it seems like those days must have ended or else I remember incorrectly. I'll stick to WW2 aircraft lol